3 ms·

> That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the los

by mp05 2y ago

> That's true, but I still wouldn't call the average (neo)nazi's world view "consistent". They believe(d) jews owned the world, that white men came from the lost continent of Hyperborea, that communists were allied to the jews in an international plot to undermine the "white race". > There are many reasons one would fall for such falsehoods, but I don't think reasoning your way into a twisted ethical paradigm is one of them. In other words, I think you have to reject rationality and reasoning altogether to get to this point. I think you're conflating fringe myths with the actual core ideology. The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework. > They act purely out of a desire to fit into the in-group. That's pretty reductive don't you think? Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own. > [...] there was no inherent predisposition to nazism, anyone can, under the wrong circumstances, fall into that. I get the point, but I don’t buy the 'anyone' angle. Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment.

thrance 2y ago
> The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework. I wouldn't call fascist leadership coherent either, it's what eventually leads to the downfall of any fascistic regime. The leaders end up believing their own lies, the nazis thought the aryan race was undefeatable, and engaged in too much warring. I do still think you have to reject rationality to believe the lies and internalize the rhetoric. You can't be rational and believe in the lies. > Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. I mean, yes, technically. My understanding of "defining principle" may be slightly different from yours. To me, you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim. > It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own. You are very right on that. > Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment. You're right, that was a slight hyperbole. Here, I wanted to refer to the psychological studies done on nazis after the war, that found nothing out of the ordinary with those men.
- foxglacier 2y ago
  > you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim That's really most people though. Look at the clear but arbitrary alignment of leftists and rightists on whatever popular issue appears. They somehow never manage to agree and it's not always clear which side they're take in advance. Leftists used to oppose illegal immigration and implemented tough drug sentences, now they're the opposite. They hated globalization until Trump also worked against it and then they loved it. Did I mention Trump worked against globalization and suddenly rightists turned against it too, even though it seems like a pretty fundamental part of right wing's preference for the free market? Free speech went from left to right. Anti-semitism went from right to left. Don't mask then do mask and demonize anyone who does the wrong thing at the wrong time. Gloat about unvaccinated people dying of covid and wanting them to be denied medical care is barely a step removed from supporting the use of gas chambers on them. There's a Nazi in most people. Not everyone, but enough to commit a genocide in the right conditions. Nicely demonstrated by comedian Ryan Long showing confusion about which side to take on a new issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w
  - petsfed 2y ago
    I think its a bit reductive to describe them as "arbitrary". But I think more importantly, a lot of this jockeying is exactly what's described in the article. Leftists oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, rightist oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, but each side assumes that the other is holding similar views disingenuously. There's actual nuance if you care to look for it. Really interrogate your perspective that free speech went from left to right, for instance (its the least likely of the bunch to drive a flame war from either side, so that's why I'm picking on it). Is it the case that leftist don't want people to say what they believe in the public square? Or are they instead concerned about how social media enables highly targeted disinformation campaigns, because its much much easier to flood a person's feed with dozens of seemingly-unique-and-distinct voices pushing the intended narrative? Similarly, are rightist voices actually concerned about the deafening impact of widespread disinformation campaigns on social media? Or just at being muzzled?
  - 2y ago

by mp05 2y ago

thrance 2y ago

> The leadership's principles were coherent, even if built on lies. People don't need to reject rationality to fall for it, they just need to rationalize cruelty within a warped framework. I wouldn't call fascist leadership coherent either, it's what eventually leads to the downfall of any fascistic regime. The leaders end up believing their own lies, the nazis thought the aryan race was undefeatable, and engaged in too much warring. I do still think you have to reject rationality to believe the lies and internalize the rhetoric. You can't be rational and believe in the lies. > Though warped and morally indefensible, they definitely have defining principles. I mean, yes, technically. My understanding of "defining principle" may be slightly different from yours. To me, you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim. > It's unwise to treat your ideological enemies introspect and intellect as inherently inferior to what you perceive as your own. You are very right on that. > Some people just aren't predisposed to that kind of thinking or behavior, no matter the environment. You're right, that was a slight hyperbole. Here, I wanted to refer to the psychological studies done on nazis after the war, that found nothing out of the ordinary with those men.

foxglacier 2y ago
> you don't really have principles if you're able to align your opinion with the party's new line on a whim That's really most people though. Look at the clear but arbitrary alignment of leftists and rightists on whatever popular issue appears. They somehow never manage to agree and it's not always clear which side they're take in advance. Leftists used to oppose illegal immigration and implemented tough drug sentences, now they're the opposite. They hated globalization until Trump also worked against it and then they loved it. Did I mention Trump worked against globalization and suddenly rightists turned against it too, even though it seems like a pretty fundamental part of right wing's preference for the free market? Free speech went from left to right. Anti-semitism went from right to left. Don't mask then do mask and demonize anyone who does the wrong thing at the wrong time. Gloat about unvaccinated people dying of covid and wanting them to be denied medical care is barely a step removed from supporting the use of gas chambers on them. There's a Nazi in most people. Not everyone, but enough to commit a genocide in the right conditions. Nicely demonstrated by comedian Ryan Long showing confusion about which side to take on a new issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Pw_TxBe7w
- petsfed 2y ago
  I think its a bit reductive to describe them as "arbitrary". But I think more importantly, a lot of this jockeying is exactly what's described in the article. Leftists oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, rightist oppose globalism for good reasons based in their ideology, but each side assumes that the other is holding similar views disingenuously. There's actual nuance if you care to look for it. Really interrogate your perspective that free speech went from left to right, for instance (its the least likely of the bunch to drive a flame war from either side, so that's why I'm picking on it). Is it the case that leftist don't want people to say what they believe in the public square? Or are they instead concerned about how social media enables highly targeted disinformation campaigns, because its much much easier to flood a person's feed with dozens of seemingly-unique-and-distinct voices pushing the intended narrative? Similarly, are rightist voices actually concerned about the deafening impact of widespread disinformation campaigns on social media? Or just at being muzzled?
- 2y ago